IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.28431-28432 OF 2018 (GM-MM-S) BETWEEN:
S.NAGESWARA REDDY SON OF SAMBASHIVA REDDY AGED 46 YEARS VENKATESHWAR NILAYA 23RD WARD, 5TH CROSS CHAPPARADAHALLI HOSPET – 583 201 BALLARI DISTRICT (BY SHRI R.G.KOLLE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE DIRECTOR & COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY COLLEGE ROAD, HOSPETE – 583 201 ... PETITIONER 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE (MINES) BELLARY BELLARY – 583 101 5. GEOLOGIST & TECHNICAL OFFICER DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY COLLEGE ROAD HOSPETE – 583 201 6. ASSISTANT ENGINEER DEPT. OF MINES & GEOLOGY COLLEGE ROAD HOSPETE – 583 201 (BY SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE REJECTION ORDER DATED 24.11.2017 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A REFUSING TO GRANT AND EXECUTE QUARRY LEASES TO EXTRACT MURRAM, WHICH IS A NON-SPECIFIED MINRO MINERAL, OVER AN AREA OF 08.00 ACRES AND 09.00 ACRES RESPECTIVELY, IN GOVT. WASTE LAND (PARAMBOKU) IN SY.NO.117 OF RAJAPURA VILLAGE, HOSPETE TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT AS PER QL APPLICATIONS DATED 13.04.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND E RESPECTIVELY, PURSUANT TO DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING OF DISTRICT TASK FORCE COMMITTEE DATED 07.10.2017 HEADED BY 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 16.03.2017 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITIONS NO.2303-04/2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The learned HCGP takes notice for the respondents.
3. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned an order by which the applications made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease for murram have been rejected.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, we have gone through the impugned order dated 24th November 2017. The impugned order records a finding that there is no law or Rule which permits grant of quarrying lease to extract murram in Government lands. In fact, perusal of the impugned order shows that that is the only ground on which the petitioner’s applications have been rejected.
5. We have perused the definition of ‘minor minerals’ under clause (e) of Section 3 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the said Act of 1957’). It is not in dispute that murram is included in the definition of minor minerals. We have also perused the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the said Rules’). Even Schedule - I to the said Rules gives sufficient indication that murram is a minor mineral within the meaning of the said Act of 1957 and the said Rules and therefore, the said Rules will apply to the quarrying lease for excavation of murram. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the ground set out in the impugned order dated 24th November 2017 is completely erroneous and on that ground, the applications made by the petitioner could not have been rejected. Therefore, the case of the petitioner will have to be reconsidered by the concerned Authority.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that a writ of mandamus was issued to the concerned respondents directing them to pass an order granting quarrying lease to the petitioner. After having perused the impugned order dated 24th November 2017, we found that the ground on which the application made by the petitioner is rejected is completely unsustainable. However, the competent authority which is empowered to grant the quarrying lease will have to examine several relevant aspects before a decision is taken for grant of quarrying lease. Hence, such a drastic relief cannot be granted.
7. Hence, we dispose of the writ petitions by passing the following order:
(a) The impugned order dated 24th November 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside;
(b) We direct the third respondent to pass a fresh order on the applications made by the petitioner for grant of quarrying lease in accordance law and in the light of what is held in the judgment and order;
(c) Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from today;
(d) There is no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB